The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The purport of the consistent statement of the grounds for appeal by the complainant F is that “the Defendant engaged in interfering with the Defendant’s business on the first attendance day of D” and that the Defendant’s interference with the Defendant’s business occurred once on the first attendance day of D, the identity of the facts charged is recognized even if the date and time of the crime was changed from July 11, 2017 to July 12, 2017.

In addition, the crime of interference with business is established since the defendant's act of occupying D's occupation and making D returned to D constitutes "deficial force".

In the end, the court below dismissed the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment and acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. At around 08:30 on July 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the foregoing D’s entry into the management office of the victim Co., Ltd., the managing body of the said apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the management office of the instant facts charged, stating that “A’s access to the management office of the victim Co., Ltd., Ltd., the managing body of the said apartment, is unnecessary; and (b) in order for E to perform the duties of the management office of the said apartment, the managing office of the instant facts charged, stating that “A’s access to the management office is unnecessary

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's B apartment management business by force.

B. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged cannot be proven without reasonable doubt, on July 12, 2017, by the Prosecutor’s testimony that “D was at least at 2:3 p.m. on July 11, 2017,” and that “D was at the management office, etc. at 2:0 p.m. on July 12, 2017,” and that “D was at the management office, etc. at the above court, and there was no fact preventing the Defendant from working.”